John Doe protection

Audrey Hudson at the Washington Times reports that US Airways, airport seek trial in imams’ suit:

US Airways and Minneapolis airport officials are demanding a jury trial in a civil rights lawsuit filed by a group of Muslim imams who were removed from a flight for suspicious behavior.

The airline and Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), which oversees Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, are also claiming immunity for their employees named in the suit, citing a “John Doe” law passed by Congress last year that, among other things, protects people acting in an official capacity to prevent terrorist attacks.

“We believe the police officers acted appropriately and that it is important that airports across the nation be able to take action when there is a reasonable belief that travelers could be threatened,” said Patrick Hogan, MAC spokesman.

“In this case, there were travelers and flight crew members who raised concerns, and we worked with federal authorities who interviewed the imams,” Mr. Hogan said. “We believe the process worked as it should to protect the traveling public.”

Frederick Goetz, the imams’ lawyer, declined to comment on the lawsuit, which was amended Dec. 14 and now names six airport police officers as defendants. The suit says the officials engaged in “intentional discrimination” when they removed the imams from the Minneapolis-to-Phoenix flight in November 2006.

In its Dec. 20 response, the commission said: “MAC police officers took reasonable action in good faith upon reports of suspicious behavior.”

— (1) IN GENERAL.—Any person who, in good faith and based on objectively reasonable suspicion, makes, or causes to be made, a voluntary report of covered activity to an authorized official shall be immune from civil liability under Federal, State, and local law for such report.

— (2) FALSE REPORTS.—Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any report that the person knew to be false or was made with reckless disregard for the truth at the time that person made that report.

(b) IMMUNITY FOR RESPONSE.—

— (1) IN GENERAL.—Any authorized official who observes, or receives a report of, covered activity and takes reasonable action in good faith to respond to such activity shall have qualified immunity from civil liability for such action, consistent with applicable law in the relevant jurisdiction. An authorized official as defined by subsection (d)(1)(A) not entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity shall nevertheless be immune from civil liability under Federal, State, and local law if such authorized official takes reasonable action, in good faith, to respond to the reported activity.

— (2) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Nothing in this subsection shall affect the ability of any authorized official to assert any defense, privilege, or immunity that would otherwise be available, and this subsection shall not be construed as affecting any such defense, privilege, or immunity.

If this lawsuit goes to trial, it appears the imams will have to convince a jury that the police, airport officials, employees, and the airlines were not acting in good faith based upon the information they received and personally observed. That seems like a pretty steep hill for them to climb. A jury trial also ups the financial risk the imams and their sponsors take in pursuing the matter.

A federal court yesterday accepted a request by a group of Muslim imams to drop all claims in a federal lawsuit against unspecified “John Doe” passengers for reporting the men’s suspicious behavior, which led to their removal from a US Airways flight last year. The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court of Minnesota was amended to “hereby dismiss possible defendants ‘John Does’ as set forth in … the first amended complaint as parties from this action,” said the notice of dismissal. The lawsuit still targets US Airways and Minneapolis airport workers.

Gerry Nolting, a lawyer who represents one of the unnamed “John Doe” passengers, said the dismissal demonstrates the imams’ case did not hold water and that the passengers “were doing nothing but their important duty as airline travelers to report suspicious behavior to the appropriate authorities.” “Hopefully, this will encourage all airline travelers to continue to be the eyes and ears of the FAA and report suspicious behavior,” Mr. Nolting said.

The lawsuit had said that “plaintiffs are unaware of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as John Does and therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will … amend this complaint to allege true names, capacities, and circumstances supporting the liability of said defendants” after finding out that information. Passengers and the flight crew said the men were disruptive and did not take their assigned seats and formed a pattern similar to the September 11 hijackers. Some of the men asked for seat-belt extensions they did not need, criticized the war in Iraq and President Bush and talked about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

The Becket Fund, a legal advocacy group that pursues religious freedom cases, demanded that the passengers be dropped from the suit and announced it would represent for free any passengers who were identified and formally named.

The CAIR backed lawsuit against those U.S. Airways Flight 300 passengers who reported the November 20, 2006, suspicious behavior of 6 imams will continue. Their suit was always about intimidating people out of saying something when they see something. Friday, Congress sent HR 1, the ‘Improving America’s Security Act of 2007′ to President Bush for signature. It included this language:

Yet be warned, John Doe, for CAIR has millions and a promise of a $50 million dollar endowment from a person or entity in Dubai, and they are still gunning for you. CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper discussed this with MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson (my kudos to Mr. Carlson. You will see why I offer them). Your legal fight is not over:

There is one pitfall to CAIR’s exploratory lawsuit against John Doe, this ‘losers pay’ provision within HR 1:

With great and all due respect to Congressman Pete King (R-NY), the language in HR 1 should, in my opinion, have added:

In all cases, it will be presumed that a reportee has acted in good faith and no court shall entertain a civil complaint against them lest a criminal court finds their statements to have been knowingly false or malicious in intent.

That would have shut the American based, terrorist sympathizing CAIR’s legal efforts down, at least until the sharia law they wish to impose here supersedes our Constitution.